Dr. Ron Paul Casts Only Vote against Ban on Lead in Toys, Ban Passes House 424 to 1

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., (R-Texas) the former Republican and Libertarian Party candidate for president, cast the only vote against banning lead in toys in the House of Representatives yesterday:

Alarmed by a year of recalls targeting millions of tainted toys, the House voted overwhelming Wednesday to ban lead and other dangerous chemicals from items such as jewelry and rubber ducks that could end up in kids’ mouths.

The legislation also would toughen rules for testing children’s products and take steps to give more muscle to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was criticized last year for its feeble handling of a flood of goods from China deemed hazardous to children.

Even flat-earthers like Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking member of the committee that first passed the ban, were in favor of it. “[Our] children’s toys will be tested in the laboratory before they are tested by our children on the living room floors of America,” Barton said, in a prepared statement.

Key to the libertarian philosophy is the idea that citizens should take responsibility for themselves — that government’s role should be limited to protecting the country from its enemies but little else. For example, government should not provide pensions like Social Security or medical aid through systems like Medicare.

Libertarians also believe that in situations like this, when toy manufacturers infuse their products with enough lead to cause brain damage in children, it is up to the market to punish them.

But dealing with a sudden rise in the incidence of lead in toys is a glaring example of how the libertarian approach is impracticable. By voting against the ban, Dr. Paul is saying that toy manufacturers should be free to put whatever poisons they like in their products, and then, after enough children become brain-damaged to cause a panic, the market — the toy-buying public — will exact its punishment by taking away the manufacturer’s revenue.

Dr. Paul has five grown children, and it would be interesting to know whether he really believes the laissez-faire interests of Chinese toy manufacturers are more important than the health and safety of his 18 grandchildren.

On the other hand, Paul has never been an ideologically pure libertarian. While he apparently believes the government has no business protecting children from malfeasant toymakers, he is firmly in favor of passing laws to regulate the pregnancies of American women as well as the exclusion of gays from the civil right to marry.

44 Responses »

  1. Cawdor July 31, 2008 @ 9:48 am

    “he is firmly in favor of passing laws to regulate the pregnancies of American women”

    If liberty is to be equal among all individuals then it must include the unborn. The government makes it a crime to kill an unborn fetus thus acknowledging the right to life of the unborn.

    Still your statement is false, Dr Paul gas stated that it is a matter for the states to decide and not the Federal government.

    “as well as the exclusion of gays from the civil right to marry.”

    Another false statement, Dr Paul has stated that 2 consenting people can enter into any contract that they desire and the federal government’s only involvement is to protect that contract not meddle with it.

    He has stated that marriage is a religious contract and not the business of government to interfere with but again it is up to the states to decide and not the federal government


    As for toy ban .. The principle of the law is that it is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the authority to regulate the safety of goods.That power is given to the states under the Constitution.

    While good intentions are always the default reason for passing unconstitutional laws the fact of the matter is that it is still an illegal law.

    If Cthe Congress can ignore the law then we as citizens can as well .. and if the law is to be ignored then what is the point of having a congress in the first place if it is ok for everyone to ignore the law.

    If you want Congress to have the power to regulate product safety then follow the Constitution which details how you can amend it so that Congress can do so..

    The road to hell is always paved with good intentions

  2. nikolai July 31, 2008 @ 10:10 am

    Cawdor; good comment!

    Jon Ponder; Poor, inaccurate piece; PLEASE, next time do your homework!

  3. Pete July 31, 2008 @ 10:14 am

    The ban is well within the limits of the Constitution. The Government has the power to regulate commerce, as well as the power to promote the general welfare. If making sure that poisoned toys doesn’t reach our kids isn’t promoting the general welfare, then nothing is.

    Dr. Paul is the same man who thinks the Constitution is “replete with references to God”, when there are NO references to God.

    As an attorney, it is hard to take the man seriously as he has obviously never read previous Supreme Court decision which have set the precedents and laws that we have today. He is wildly out of touch with the true meaning of the Constitution and the elasticity clause.

  4. James July 31, 2008 @ 10:17 am

    I am a Ron Paul supporter too, but I believe that the argument can be made that the Federal Government does have jurisdiction over international trade:

    Article 1, Section 8:

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    So in this case, the states WOULD NOT have the authority to impose requirements on international commerce, as it is a power specifically delegated to the federal government.

    As to why he voted against this ban, I can only suspect there may have been some other aspect of the bill that was blatantly unconstitutional (perhaps creating another organization to oversee and test these toys beyond the scope of what is required) or perhaps there were some pork barrel items tagged onto it that had nothing to do with the legislation at hand.

    Not that I am making excuses for him, just offering alternatives as to why he voted against it. Unless he specifically said that he was voting against it because Congress regulating foreign commerce is unconstitutional (I doubt he would have said that, because I know he knows it’s right in section 8), then I will assume he had some other reason to oppose it.

  5. Jon Ponder July 31, 2008 @ 10:26 am

    Ron Paul says he is “strongly pro-life.” Whether state or federal bureaucrats are given control over women’s reproductive systems is immaterial.

    About gay marriage:

    Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.” Paul stated, “Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages.” He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. Paul has also stated he doesn’t want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”

    In other words, Paul believes the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and not even grant licenses to dual-gender couples.

    Maybe that Randian fantasy will come true one day but in the reality we live in now, marriage is a civil, not religious, institution. Proof: Divorces are not granted by churches. A consistent laissez-faire libertarian would not approve of the government deciding who can and cannot get married based on the 5,000 year old writings of desert herdsmen.

    I wish a Paul supporter would explain how my right to marry my partner of 29 years is hostile to the liberty of anyone else — or what anyone else has to “fear” from our obtaining the 600 or so legal rights and uncountable responsibilities of marriage in one quick, relatively inexpensive action, rather than hiring lawyers and paying hundreds of dollars to write contracts to create a construct of marriage around our “voluntary association.”

    I agree that the federal government has no business regulating marriage. As far as I know there is only one federal law pertaining to marriage — the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which is un-Constitutional on its face since Loving vs. Virginia established precedence that marriages are covered by the full faith and credit clause, meaning that any marriage, mixed race, gay or straight, conducted in any state must be recognized by all states.

  6. James July 31, 2008 @ 10:29 am


    The problem with the elasticity clause and the subject of “general welfare” (while ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments) is that theoretically ALL power can be concentrated in the Federal government.

    We could easily become a unitary government if we hold to these interpretations. Yes, I know precedents were set, but that doesn’t make them right. Dred Scott was certainly not right, neither was Brown v. Board.

    We have focused too heavily on granting the federal government the power over ALL aspects of our government when they should be limited specifically to those roles outlined in section 8.

    The elasticity clause refers to making necessary and proper laws to execute the FOREGOING powers, not additional powers outside the scope of section 8. For example, there is nothing in section 8 regarding health or education, environment, etc. WITH THE EXCEPTION of when it involves matters crossing state borders or international borders.

    But back to the General Welfare stipulation, what if we make the argument that all disabled children should be “put to sleep” after they are born and that people be required to undergo genetic testing before having a child in the name of General Welfare? A strong argument can be made in favor of such a policy on the grounds that it is in the best interests of the child (who would have a rough life) the parents (who would be burdened by additional costs) or the government (who would probably have to provide some sort of welfare for the child at some point).

    The General Welfare argument always leads to a slippery slope because the definition is highly subjective and prone to dangerous and unconstitutional political agendas.

  7. Cawdor's Conscience July 31, 2008 @ 10:36 am

    As far as I am concerned Dr. Paul has no real concept of marriage. Within our country Marriage Certificates are offered by the State, not by the churches, this means that by definition Marriage is a state sanctioned contract, so really, the church has no business involving itself, regardless of whether marriage was originally initiated through them or not. This is made apparent when you look at the long list of requirements to be married (whether it is state or federal law), in that they all apply to a contract between two people excluding a single item that pertains to religion (shown below);

    A religious ceremony should be conducted under the customs of the religion, or, in the case of a Native American group, under the customs of the tribe. Religious ceremonies normally are conducted by religious officials, such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Native American ceremonies may be presided over by a tribal chief or other designated official.

    Also, if it is religiously affiliated, wouldn’t you expect only certain religions to allow it, or at least broad religious groups (ie. Judeo-Christian, Orthodox, Hindu, etc…) instead of EVERY religion allowing it (it would almost appear that every one of these different Gods got together beforehand and discussed it, either that or it is a totally man-made construct and has no relevance to religion).

    “If liberty is to be equal among all individuals then it must include the unborn. The government makes it a crime to kill an unborn fetus thus acknowledging the right to life of the unborn.”

    Not necessarily true, you are using the age-old argument that every pro-life activist spews, so don’t act like Dr. Paul is giving us any new insight here, you still need to define the point when it stops being a cluster of cells and starts being a person. Even according to Dr. Paul a pile of semen on the floor doesn’t deserve to have liberties, so if we determine that a fetus isn’t human, then we can still have abortions. Since Dr. Paul is not asking for an open debate on when life begins and instead is saying that a fetus deserves liberties he is making that decision for people, which means that him being a federal position (Such as president) and making these decisions would put him in the realm of hypocrisy (saying that the federal government shouldn’t be involved, but then making a decision that directly affects it as a federal agent).

  8. Eric July 31, 2008 @ 11:30 am

    It is true that states license marriage.

    A quick study of the history behind this is certainly interesting. State’s started this process for racist reasons. the first state issues marriage licenses were only needed for interracial marriages. Technically, two people of different race could marry, providing they got a license and lived to tell about it.

    I think I prefer Ron Paul’s view myself. Government should get out of the marriage permission business altogether.

  9. Seth July 31, 2008 @ 11:37 am

    His vote doesn’t mean he thinks they should, only that the federal government, as defined in the Constitution, does not have the authority to pass such a law.

    He believes it should be up to each state, same thing regarding abortion.

    Horrible article, do your research.

  10. Barry Donegan July 31, 2008 @ 11:41 am

    First of all, those of you who believe that government regulation of lead in toys will result in less lead in toys are patently foolish. This is the same justification that we have regulation in medicine. We believe that a regulatory body can not only stop malpractice or poor medical care, but can reduce it, when in fact it tends to generate far more. The additional costs involved in regulatory fees can make the products which are not violating the rules no longer viable, meaning that the biggest most unstable corporations can manipulate the regulatory body to get certain exceptions for themselves and tinker with the regulation to actually prevent desireable, viable products from getting to the market.

    The FDA is the greatest example of this. Now the focus of the FDA is to promote treatment drugs and addictive anxiety medication, while commonly known natural remedies are unable to pass muster.

    Switching from community regulation and watchdog group regulation to government regulation tends to make the community and watchdog regulation no longer possible. Often it becomes illegal to make quotations or claims about a product which have not been verified by a regulatory body, and this means that rather than peer review by a group who is motivated by being the leading source on the subject, having to constantly prove themselves, is replaced by a small department of beaurocrats with no need to prove their effectivesness taking on the same role.

    It is the belief of libertarian thinking that this will have a net result of more danger and more suffering, much like the FDA and HMO act have done to healthcare. Much like the Dept. of Education has done to education standards.

    The market is doing a great job with lead in toys right now. We just found out that when the government enters into managed trade agreements that give Chinese goods a better deal to reach the consumer than American goods do, tax-wise, and since China has an almost no-cost labor environment, then the consequence of this trade management is poor quality, almost deadly goods.

    The market found out, and the media caught on, and parents found out. Now that the jig is up, its only a matter of time before toys saying “Made in China” are not going to make it to a kids playroom.

    Now that the regulatory body is in place, it is only a matter of time until the corporations manufacturing lead toys gain control of this group, make it into a cartel, and block all NON LEAD toys from entering the market.

    Im sorry to let you guys know, but there is no legislation on earth that can prevent people from buying things they shouldn’t, doing drugs they shouldn’t, having accidents, and dying.

    Just giving stock in the fact that it could be possible to stop these things, is in and of itself more dangerous. If this regulatory body makes a mistake and lets a lead toy hit the market with total consumer confidence, and then someone dies… with magazines having a hush order about making claims about other products which haven’t yet been approved by the Toy Commission or whatever it is…

    not to mention a well-intentioned toy maker upstart in the U.S. will now have another body with regulatory fees he will have to attend to, which will prevent the toy from every being made.

    parents care about their children enough to do the research, it already started happening.

  11. Mario July 31, 2008 @ 11:44 am

    Here’s how the market works. The lead is discovered. The press picks up on this and publisizes the issue. Hysteria ensues. Lawyers have their appetites whetted. Stores, fearful of lawsuits, pull suspect toys. Manufacturers and insurance companies unite to form an association to oversee the production of lead-free toys, which will bear a stamp of approval. The press publisizes this. Stores look to sell toys from reputable manufacturers. People buy these toys.

    Instead, we impede how the market works by running to daddy government to “do something.” And politicians, who need to stay in the news more than anyone else and who need to be seen as “doing something” more than anyone else, are only to happy to usurp the market’s self-correction and oblige.

  12. Matt Johnson July 31, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

    “It is also interesting to note that while Dr. Paul believes the government has no business protecting children from malfeasant toymakers, he is firmly in favor of passing laws to regulate the pregnancies of American women as well as the exclusion of gays from the civil right to marry.”

    Oh, for God’s sake. Dr. Paul has consistently voted against attempts by the federal government to regulate either of those. Please remove this bit as it takes away credence from your article. Thankyou.

  13. Mario, you are crazy July 31, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

    Mario, as you say in your post, the way it works is “the lead is discovered”, but my question is by whom, is it discovered by your child that dies from lead poisoning? Your neighbor’s child? Is it discovered by the people that are manufacturing the toys when some of them die? We are not guinea pigs, our children are not guinea pigs, and they shouldn’t be used as such. It is a shame that so very few people can see this, that according to a free market solution people will need to become sick or die before we take action, and the action you suggest is to infer you will sue to intimidate a store to stop carrying it. Maybe if we decided to reward morals instead of cash businesses would check products before putting them on their shelves.

  14. Jon July 31, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

    Sorry, Matt. Paul is “strongly pro-life.” The only way to ensure that women don’t obtain abortions is to pass laws to make the practice illegal.

    Similarly, Paul’s position on gay marriage is that he believes it is “hostile to liberty” and something to be “feared.” Sounds like he’s in favor of keeping it illegal, which requires passing laws.

    As I said before, whether the laws are passed at the state or federal is immaterial to the fact that it is anti-laissez-faire to support this sort of regulation.

    And Eric – Governments had been licensing marriages for centuries before the marriage of mixed race couples was allowed in the United States.

  15. Steve July 31, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

    Just goes to show out of touch with reality Ron Paul is with his irresponsibly selfish, overly anarchistic policies.

  16. Steve July 31, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

    Also, lead in toys has limits on it already (600 ppm) for health reasons – it was not banned outright as a compromise to the manufacturing and importing sectors, but was a sensible move considering the damage it can do. This legislation is just finally reducing the limit to zero.

  17. terry July 31, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

    About time someone points out the absurdity of Ron Paul.

    Libertarianism seems to refute itself in a democracy. The government should stay out of people’s business, but the government is representative of the people. Why not afford it the capability to act as an extension of ourselves more swiftly than the market can?

    Markets do correct themselves and would eventually solve the lead problem, but there’s lots of overcorrecting and stumbling and (in this case) poisoned kids along the way. I’d rather avoid that altogether and create more random inspections and ban lead outright.

  18. Mario July 31, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

    I want to address the comment from “Mario, you are crazy.”

    How about an outfit similar to Consumer Reports? Or, how about the insurance industry? Our government today tests cars for crash safety. But do you know who does more meaningful, comprehensive tests? Consumer Reports and the insurance industry. Much of that — if not all of that — has to do with the fact that politicians are more easily swayed to go along with lax standards to appease the people who give them contributions or promise them votes. None of them wants to be painted as “Anti-Detroit.”

    Consumer Reports makes money by selling magazines based on their reputation; the insurance industry makes money by looking out for to great an exposure to risk.

    By the way, signing your comments “So-and-so, you are crazy,” gave me a good laugh. Very clever!

  19. john July 31, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

    The fuckwit that wrote this hit-piece made his or her intentions clears with the closing paragraph.

    He/she doesn’t like Ron Paul’s stance on abortion and so they are attacking him on other issues.

    Of course Ron Paul doesn’t want children to become poisoned by lead. He’s saying that congress doesn’t have the power to make that kind of federal regulation.

    And who knows what other riders were on that bill.

  20. Russ July 31, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

    ‘Sorry, Jon. Russ is “strongly anti-ketchup.” The only way to ensure that he doesn’t get ketchup on his fries is to pass laws to make the practice illegal.’

    Ugh. “Strongly pro-life” and all the rest of Paul’s views on matters are immaterial. He has consistently shown that, when it comes to voting on issues, he values constitutionality above what he thinks personally.

    Hell, I may sometimes disagree with this policy, and I certainly disagree with his personal views, but saying that his views are somehow going to force him to suddenly vote against your founding fathers is patently false and more than a little dishonest.

  21. ratn9ne July 31, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

    yet another article powned by the first few comments….

  22. James July 31, 2008 @ 6:57 pm

    To those who argue that libertarianism is out dated and doesn’t work in our democracy or is too unwieldy or any other derogatory term: You are RIGHT!

    Americans can’t handle personal responsibility at this point. Add to that, people defer to the government far too much, which is a major reason the last 7 years went the way they did.

    We need to start with a firm foundation, which being a strict constructionist is VERY firm, and then move on to AMEND the Constitution when it doesn’t do what we think it should. Far too often in our history the federal government simply expanded it’s control over our daily lives because we were too lazy or too weak to care. We were too irresponsible and placed the responsibility for ourselves on the government.

    But if such things are as important as we suggest they are, then we should pass Amendments to the Constitution. If we can’t pass an amendment on an issue, then it’s obviously not important enough to be enshrined in our federal constitution. Which is why the federal constitution allows for a very broad leeway for the states to manage all other aspects of our daily lives.

    So long as we continue down this path, we may as well give up on freedom and liberty, allow a dictator to appoint himself/herself leader for life, and let all aspects of our daily lives be run by bureaucrats in Washington. We’re already two thirds of the way there now!

  23. […] The House just passed a bill that will ban lead in toys by a vote of 424 to 1. The one who voted against the ban was, of course, Crazy Ron Paul. […]

  24. Phil August 1, 2008 @ 12:16 am

    A. So what what if he believes in God? He also believe in the seperation of church and state.

    B. Not only did he vote against it because the regulation is against the law, but because it gave more power to the government, which every republican should oppose.

    C. Hes been talking about this economic melt down since the 70’s (yeah he must be crazy to have figured out this mess when it first began)

    Of course we all think that the lead should not be in the toys, but unfortunately the constitution does not allow the government to regulate the lead in the product. It doesn’t take a bunch of children getting brain damage to end the lead. What should happen is if leadis found again, that company should be forcedtopay damagesandshut down that plant. Why regulate when you can enforce ethical behavior?

  25. Birdlady August 1, 2008 @ 3:49 am

    Okay so we can all admit that lead is bad. Do you know how many other poisons, heavy metals and toxins are in our food/environment because OF THE government?

    Let’s just scratch the surface.

    We have fluoride in our municipal water supplies. Mercury is still used today in amalgam dental fillings. Thimerosol (mercury) still used in the vaccinations even after they claim to have removed it. We have genetically modified organisms contaminating our food supply. Neurotoxins (MSG-yeast extracts) are allowed in our foods because the FDA says it’s harmless. Pharmaceutical companies kill over 100,000 people a year, yet are allow to continue without question. Modern medicine kills over 750,000 a year, but the FDA still colludes with the drug makers and doctors.

    I guess the government is doing a very good job at “protecting” us.

  26. Jon August 1, 2008 @ 8:12 am

    Russ, if you are currently a lawmaker who is running for president, as Paul was when he took these positions, then your stand against ketchup is an indicator that you favor laws prohibiting its use.

  27. Cole August 2, 2008 @ 4:10 am

    I came across the fact that Paul had voted against this issue in some Youtube comments by a fanatically anti-Paul person stating that this was clear evidence that Paul hates children. Realizing that was completely irrational, I went on the research trail and found this page and its comments to be very insightful, thanks to all above who added to the debate. As the Federal government becomes more and more invasive in our lives and states rights are trampled over, I can’t help but think about the 1860’s civil war, which was completely about states rights. Naturally I don’t want it to come to that but when you read a site like motherjones.com and then read a site like townhall.com, people seem so radically opposed to one anothers views at this point that they sound as though they are ready to take up arms.. granted it is generally the conservatives who suggest such action first :)

  28. Donk August 2, 2008 @ 11:33 am

    Watching Ron Paul interviews and reading transcripts of his speeches made me admire him.
    Then I saw him make a speech about abortion. His face changed, his rhetoric lost the kindly, grandfatherly tone of his “aw shucks” personna and he became unhinged and sorta demonic looking.

    Whatever…libertarianism is the fast-track to fascism.

  29. Eric Hm November 14, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

    The main problem with this “information” is that HB 4040 does not “ban lead in toys”. It mandates testing … on toys and clothing including adult clothing. It imposes costs that will put small businesses out of business and boosts the market for certified lab testing. In other words, it is pro-big business. It’s called “rent-seeking”.

    Whatever…libertarianism is the fast-track to fascism.

    So, Weimar Germany (run almost exclusively by the Social Democrats prior to Hitler’s selection as Chancellor) and Italy (where Mussolini was once the editor for the Socialist party newspaper) were libertarian?

  30. […] recap, this law was passed (424 votes to 1) to protect children from unsafe toys after last year’s widely publicised recalls (by the […]

  31. Melissa December 3, 2008 @ 11:06 am

    As Donk, and others have stated, this bill doesn’t magically make our kids safe. It puts the burden of proof on the manufacturer. And what does that mean? That you won’t be able to go down to the local market & buy a handmade locally made wooden train set for junior because that person who does woodwork on the side cannot shell out $10,000 for testing to prove that he/she isn’t using lead based items. Nor can a work-at-home mom who makes clothes, diapers or other kids items afford the testing to prove that the fabric she got from Joann’s fabric is lead free. Joann’s won’t have to prove that it is, because it is fabric in their hands, but in a WAHM hands it becomes a children’s item and there lies where the proof is needed. Instead of the “buy USA”/buy local movement, the only choices will be shoddy items made in sweatshops because of the volume of items that are made there, the way the letter of the law is.

  32. […] recap, this law was passed (424 votes to 1) to protect children from unsafe toys after last year’s widely publicized recalls (by the way, […]

  33. Robin Smith December 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

    Protecting our children (indeed, all people) from lead exposure is a GOOD thing. But this is a STUPID law, poorly written and if it is not modified, it will do incalculable harm to the U.S. economy. Go see nationalbankruptcyday.com for more information on this, but the short version is that every small manufacturer of clothing for children (not toys, here, but clothes) will be put out of business by the insupportable testing burden this law imposes. Textiles are inherently lead free, and while dyes may add some lead, dyed fabric still meets the no more than 100 ppm standard the law requires as the ultimate goal. I am not a supporter of Ron Paul for any reason, but you have to wonder if he is the only one of our elected representatives who read and understood the ramifications of this law.

  34. indnajns December 25, 2008 @ 8:55 am

    Now that a few months have passed and the truth of this law comes out, Ron Paul is seen as the LONE congressman with a brain to see past his nose. Amazing how someone so vilified as “wanting to allow lead in baby products” is now obviously the only sane person up there voting! I don’t care about his stance on marriage, abortion, hiccups, green shoes, or whatever else they’re whining about. I care about his vote on this one law. He saw through it. *421* other legislators did NOT. Knee-jerk reaction PR was good enough for them.

    The man at least votes his conscience and not what the well paid lobbyists want. Amazing how many Americans have issue with that.

  35. Qtpies7 January 6, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

    I don’t believe he was voting against regulations, but against THIS amazingly stupid regulation.
    Check out the stats, kids are not being poisoned and having brain damage from lead toys. Yes, a few children have had elevated lead levels. This is not so amazingly outrageous as to ban every single item made for a child until it has gone through $1200 worth of testing. You can’t spend $1200 to test a $5 barette. It is outrageous!
    How are parents going to pay for clothes? They are going to more than double in cost, and you will NOT be able to buy used clothing under this law.
    Do you have any idea how much a package of diapers is going to cost now?
    68% of children’s products are small businesses, and they will not be able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for testing. That is more than half of the business going under. What is that going to do to the economy? How about unemployment?
    Who is going to pay for that?

    I don’t know Ron Paul, but I am guessing that he was actually the only one who READ the law and the only one with enough balls to not vote for it. With some major changes, this is a needed law. Right now it is a nightmare.

    I am kissing my business good-bye. And my suppliers are going to lose more than 80% of thier customers. They won’t be able to stay in business, either.

  36. Nation bankruptcy day January 7, 2009 @ 8:57 am

    I’m not a Ron Paul supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but now that we actually know what the law does this piece looks more and more ridiculous.
    Libertarians love lead let’s go!

  37. Jive Dadson January 15, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

    Ron Paul’s foresight and courage never fail to amaze me. Unless something is done quickly to repeal this horrible law, an untold number of mom and pop makers and retailers of all natural and used toys and clothing will be forced out of business in early February. Thrift stores will also suffer. Many will be forced to take huge losses on perfectly good inventory that will be illegal to sell in the US. Read all about it: http://nationalbankruptcyday.com/

  38. Sasha February 19, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

    BARRY DONEGEN: Thank you for that extremely eloquent defense of how the free market handles problems like this more quickly and effectively than government can.

    TERRY: 1st, we are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Learn the difference. 2nd – Do you really think the people control the decisions of a Democracy? Have you been paying any attention the last 200 years? You write your congresscritter, you get a polite form letter back, and then they vote with whoever can fill their campaign coffers. That’s how it works 98% of the time. American Democracy is an extension of corporate rule. This is a law that puts moms and pops out of business, so that we will have to buy all our toys from China. They might feign indignation, but do you really think Mattel is against this?

    JON: on the Constitutional point. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to “regulate international commerce.” In your estimation, does that include the power to made thrift stores throw out all of their children’s books and merchandise? Is that “International Commerce?” This law vastly oversteps the Commerce Clause, and is blatantly unconstitutional. But, noone cares anymore. Thousands of unconstitutional laws, dozens of unconstitutional wars… but you dare smear someone who speaks out against these just because you disagree with his stand on abortion. You’re as bad as a Christian Coalition types who has a “litmus test” for a pro-life stance.

    Ron Paul voted heroically on this, voting with common sense and the Constitition and against the “save our children” demagoguery. Proving once again that he and Kucinich are the only two people in that house with a shred of integrity or independent thought.

  39. Dean Larson November 24, 2011 @ 7:31 am

    in the vernacular at the time it was written, ‘regulate’ meant ‘to make smooth’.
    NOT legislate and dictate.
    Politicians have warped this to allow themselves to side-step/ignore the intentionally anti-central govt Constitution and empower themselves.
    It’s the “Commerce Clause” loophole: if it touches on ‘commerce’, no matter how tangentally, the feds feel they can intervene…and dictate…and tax.

    This desecration of the intent of the Constitution (do you think for a second that the writers would have severely ham-strung the central govt…but then say: “but if it has anything to do with commerce, do whatever you want”???)
    is probably the single most responsible factor in the reason we have the invasive, dictatorial, corrupt, ever-taxing behemoth we have today in WashDC.

  40. Jon November 25, 2011 @ 5:12 am

    Dean, Judge Laurence Silberman for the D.C. Circuit Court, a Republican partisan with a history of behind-the-scenes political activity on behalf of your and Dr. Paul’s party that is of questionable legality, could not disagree with you more. Silberman, who was a powerful but secret leader in the in the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to unseat Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, just this month ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional by citing the definition of the term “regulate” from the standard dictionary of the late 18th century:

    Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman begins his substantive analysis by quoting the text of the Commerce Clause: “Congress shall have Power … To regulate commerce … among the several states.” The legal issue in the case is whether the words “regulate commerce” extend to the regulation of economic inactivity—to force people to take the action of purchasing health insurance. Employing a classically originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, Judge Silberman does not consider what the words “regulate commerce” might mean today, but instead references Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary to determine what those words meant to those who ratified the Constitution in 1789. Johnson defined “regulate” to mean “to prescribe certain measures,” or “to adjust by rule or method.” To “regulate,” Judge Silberman reasoned, “can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market.” Judge Silberman concludes: “There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument.” To a true conservative, and to most everyone else, a constitutional argument that has no “textual support” in the language of the Constitution is an argument that will lose almost every time.

  41. Dave February 25, 2012 @ 8:32 am

    Laurence Silberman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which shows the ‘impartiality’ of our judiciary. So while you’re right that he’s a powerful but secret leader in a vast conspiracy, it’s hardly a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. To invoke him as an authority, and to imply that his ruling carries more weight as a statement against party interest, is to use an old ruse called a ‘shill’, and is no different from the phrase I’ve heard dozens of times: “even conservative George Will (or Newt Gingrich, or Charles Krauthammer) admits…” None of whom are conservative, but all of whom are current or former Council members.
    Silberman isn’t wrong to say that “nothing in the definition [of ‘regulate’] appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market.” Yeah, obviously. But the definition of ‘interstate commerce’ just as obviously would! For Silberman to write such an opinion indicates either a lack of reason, or a big government, anti-liberty agenda. Given his associations, it’s not hard to determine which of the two is in play here. But what’s Jon’s excuse?

  42. Jon February 26, 2012 @ 9:56 am

    Dave – Next you’re going to say that George W. Bush was not a conservative. Right?

  43. San Antonio Bankruptcy Attorneys October 16, 2013 @ 9:45 pm

    So I use lead weights when I go fishing – will I be arrested if I try and teach my grandson how to fish if there are lead weights on my boat? Will I be charged with a misdemeanor, felony or is it straight to jail?

  44. Jon October 19, 2013 @ 6:53 am

    Only if you force him to eat them.

Leave a Reply