Here are some of his bad votes:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On Passage of the Bill H.R. 1314: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
May 22, 2015[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Trade Promotion Authority.
The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) section of H.R. 1314 would renew the on-again-off-again "fast track authority" that Congress has often awarded to the president over the past several decades. The essential features of TPA are: (1) Congress unconstitutionally delegates authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" to the Executive Branch; and (2) Congress dramatically increases the probability of approval of trade agreements by restricting itself to an up-or-down vote with no amendments or filibusters allowed. See also House Vote 10.
The Senate passed H.R. 1314 on May 22, 2015 by a vote of 62 to 37 (Roll Call 193). We have assigned pluses to the nays because TPA would facilitate the subordination of the national independence of the United States to regional trading blocs, a power that is not granted to any branch of government in the Constitution.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On Passage of the Bill H.R. 803: An act to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to strengthen the United States workforce development system through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education programs in the United States, and to promote individual and national economic growth, and for other purposes.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 25, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Workforce Training.
H.R. 803 would consolidate workforce training programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, reauthorize adult-education programs, and reauthorize other workforce-related programs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The Senate passed H.R. 803 on June 25, 2014 by a vote of 95 to 3 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no constitutional authorization for federal workforce-training programs. This is not to say that workforce training is a bad thing, but such programs are best handled by the private sector, which would surely provide more and better jobs if the federal government were to siphon less money out of the economy for programs to improve the economy.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2867 to H.R. 4152 (Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014): In the nature of a substitute.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
March 27, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Ukraine Aid.
The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 — would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.
The Senate adopted the substitute amendment to H.R. 4152 on March 27, 2014 by a vote of 98 to 2 (Roll Call 88). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On Passage of the Bill S. 1086: A bill to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
March 13, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Child Care.
This bill (S. 1086) would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program through fiscal 2020 and would further institute new standards for education, health, and safety on child care providers that receive funds under this program. It would also expand the information required from states regarding how they will make use of the funds, as well as require that the states develop plans that include guidelines for training and teaching children from the time they are born until they enroll in kindergarten. The CBO has estimated that implementing this bill would cost $16.8 billion over the 2015-2020 period.
The Senate passed S. 1086 on March 13, 2014 by a vote of 96 to 2 (Roll Call 77). We have assigned pluses to the nays because childcare funding is an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. Just based on the brief description of S. 1086 in the above paragraph, it is clear that this bill would increase federal oversight of child care and impose national standards reminiscent of what the widely reviled Common Core State (read National) Standards are doing to K-12 education.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 1739 to S. 1243 (Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations): To redirect certain foreign assistance to the Government of Egypt as a result of the July 3, 2013, military coup d'etat.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
July 31, 2013[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Aid to Egypt.
During consideration of the fiscal 2014 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill (S. 1243), Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) offered a motion to table (kill) an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul's amendment would have established that the July 3, 2013 overthrow of the Mohammed Morsi government in Egypt was a military coup d'état, thus prohibiting the United States from providing military aid to Egypt until another "democratic" election occurs. As Paul noted in the text of the amendment, "The United States is legally prohibited from providing foreign assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by a military coup d'état, or removed in such a way that the military plays a decisive role.... [Military aid] shall be halted until the President certifies to Congress that democratic national elections have taken place in Egypt followed by a peaceful transfer of power."
The money that would be used for military aid to Egypt would instead, under Paul’s amendment, be redirected for the repair of U.S. bridges and other critical national highways.
The Senate agreed to the motion and killed the Paul amendment on July 31, 2013 by a vote of 86 to 13 (Roll Call 195). We have assigned pluses to the nays because a reduction in foreign aid, particularly in the form of military assistance, is a good thing. The Constitution does not authorize the government to give foreign aid and meddle in other nations’ internal affairs, so while Paul's amendment would allow for the resumption of aid to Egypt, it would still be an improvement on the status quo.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On Passage of the Bill S. 744: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 27, 2013[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Immigration Reform.
This bill (S. 744) would provide an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy that features the granting of immediate legal status for most illegal immigrants in the United States (aka amnesty), new visa programs for a wide range of workers from low-skilled to high-skilled, and new border security measures (only reducing the illegal immigration rate by 25-50 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office). While the rate of legal immigration into the United States is currently about one million per year, this bill would raise the average legal immigration rate to several million per year.
The Senate passed the Immigration Overhaul on June 27, 2013 by a vote of 68 to 32 (Roll Call 168). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the large-scale amnesty and new visa programs coupled with a lack of effective border security would lead to both large increases in legal immigration and continuing large-scale illegal immigration, even though the U.S. government has the duty under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to "protect [every state] against Invasion." Furthermore, we have assigned pluses to the nays because, by granting amnesty, increasing levels of legal immigration, and permitting continued large-scale illegal immigration, this bill provides a transition to the open borders sought by the advocates of a North American Union and other regional government schemes threatening our national sovereignty.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 1200 to S. 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act): To provide for enhanced border security, including strong border security metrics and congressional votes on border security and for other purposes.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 19, 2013[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Border Security.
During consideration of the Immigration Overhaul (S. 744), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a motion to table (kill) an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would "not allow the processing of this new category called registered provisional immigrants until Congress votes that the border is secure." Paul's amendment featured a requirement that Congress certify every year for five years that the border is secure or at least making specific progress toward border security as defined in detail by the amendment. If Congress would vote in any of these five years that the border is not becoming more secure, then the processing of people as "registered provisional immigrants" as provided for in S. 744 would stop until Congress would vote that the border is becoming more secure.
The Senate agreed to Reid's motion and killed the Paul amendment on June 19, 2013 by a vote of 61 to 37 (Roll Call 154). We have assigned pluses to the nays because it is the constitutional duty of the United States to "protect [every state] against Invasion" (Article IV, Section 4).
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 263 to S.Con.Res. 8: In the nature of a substitute.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
March 22, 2013[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Balanced Budget Resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a substitute amendment with a replacement budget (Amendment 263) to the budget resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution 8). The amendment called for a balanced budget in five years with no revenue increases. As Paul said, "This budget is called the Revitalize America Budget. It reforms and saves Social Security and Medicare, making them solvent for 75 years; it creates millions of jobs by letting taxpayers keep an additional $600 billion of their income; it repeals ObamaCare; and it requires Congress to vote to approve or disapprove all major regulations. Our ever-expanding debt is costing us millions of jobs a year. It is time to stop burying our kids in debt."
Paul's proposed budget would also have eliminated the Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy departments. A tax code overhaul that would eliminate the estate and capital gains taxes and switch to a flat tax system was also included.
The Senate rejected Paul's substitute amendment on March 22, 2013 by a vote of 18 to 81 (Roll Call 69). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because any reduction of unconstitutional federal agencies and massive amounts of debt-laden, unconstitutional federal spending, without revenue increases, is desirable.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
Motion to Table S.Amdt.2143: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, to prohibit employees of the Food and Drug Administration from carrying firearms and making arrests without warrants, and to adjust the mens rea of certain prohibited acts under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to knowing and willful.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote Date:
May 24, 2012[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"]FDA Regulation of Food & Dietary Supplements. During consideration of the FDA user-fee authorization bill (S. 3187), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to prohibit FDA from regulating food or dietary supplements as drugs and censoring product health claims. Paul's amendment would also "prohibit employees of the Food and Drug Administration from carrying firearms and making arrests without warrants."
The Senate tabled (killed) Paul's amendment on May 24, 2012 by a vote of 78 to 15 (Roll Call 107). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the FDA censorship of health claims is a violation of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment, and because the federal government is using armed agents to enforce unconstitutional regulations -- e.g., against the selling of raw milk.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD="class: paddingleft"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: paddingleft, colspan: 4"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
