I wrote the following piece as my response to the questionnaire for candidates for federal positions who are seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (Republican Party).
I will be running for the U.S. House of Representatives from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District.
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
8. U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our legitimate national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens. Intervention is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international community.
I will be running for the U.S. House of Representatives from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District.
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
Summary of Responses
1.
The proper role of government is to protect individual rights and
support useful commerce; not to provide for the common good, nor to
preserve American culture.
2.
Taxing foreign trade is the only constitutional method of obtaining
federal revenues, but any additional taxes on capital, labor, and
consumption could be implemented constitutionally via
the amendment process.
3. The federal government has the Constitutional authority to enforce
an individual right to keep and bear arms; but not to require
registration of firearms ownership, limit magazine capacity or gun
features, or require waiting periods for weapon purchases.
4.
Federal electoral campaign contributions and expenditures should be
reported and publicly disclosed by state governments; not financed
and controlled by the Federal Election Commission, nor protected as
free speech.
5.
What is a proper education for children should be decided by their
parents and the local school boards; not the state education boards,
nor the federal Department of Education.
6. From the current level, federal government spending should
decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt
repayments and/or tax decreases; rather than increase or be set at
some undetermined level.
7. I favor both bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements to reduce
barriers to trade; rather than favoring America first in every way
possible or supporting and protecting industries which are in
trouble.
8. U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our legitimate national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens. Intervention is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international community.
9. I
favor national service which is strictly voluntary; not national
service which is compulsory for military needs, nor required for
community benefit, nor discriminatory towards non-heterosexuals.
10. Drugs, chemicals, and foods which may have harmful side effects
should be either well-labeled and available to adults, or available
with a physician's prescription, and that decision should be made at
the state and local levels. Potentially harmful foods and drugs
should not be banned or controlled by the federal government, nor
should they be protected by liability limits.
11. The federal government should engage in neither standardizing
claims related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for
National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in -
nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol.
12. Congress's power to provide for the general welfare means that
the federal government should exercise power over issues that affect
the entire U.S. population; not that business interests, social
welfare, nor any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or
group of people, should justify federal spending)
Explanation of Responses
1. B & D
(The proper role of
government is to protect individual rights and support useful
commerce; not to provide for the common good, nor to preserve
American culture)
The proper role of
government is to (B) protect individual rights, such as the
natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of
happiness; and to (D) support useful commerce by ensuring that
interstate commerce is well-regulated – that is, uninterrupted,
unobstructed, and free from the effects of monopolies and trusts
which are harmful to competitive markets.
The Congress does not
have any enumerated constitutional authority to (C) preserve
American culture aside from
fixing the standards of weights and measures. (A) Providing
for the common good is not the
proper role of the U.S. federal government (I will explain why in my
answer to Question #12, which concerns the General Welfare Clause).
2. Primarily
D, but all of the above under certain conditions
(Taxing
foreign trade is the only constitutional method of obtaining federal
revenues, but any additional taxes on capital, labor, and
consumption could be implemented constitutionally via
the amendment process)
The
best method of obtaining federal revenues is to (D) tax
foreign trade, because duties,
imposts, and excises are the only types of taxation which the
Congress has constitutionally enumerated power to levy.
We
should be wary that to tax (A) capital / profits, (B) labor
/ income, (C) consumption / sales,
and/or (D) foreign trade / imports and exports
may effectively discourage the action which is taxed, and remember
that we should only tax things which we want
to discourage; things like conspicuous consumption and frivolity.
I
would favor repealing the unconstitutional 16th
Amendment which provided for the taxation of (B) income,
and I would support funding the federal government through taxes on
importation and exportation (as the only
constitutional forms of taxation).
While
supporting a return to 100% federal revenue derived from (D)
taxes on foreign trade, I would
support transitioning to a situation in which taxes on foreign goods
are supplemented by (C) a consumption tax which
would act as a luxury law on conspicuous consumption and frivolity,
alongside a negative tax on (B) income, and
a tax correcting disparities in the gains of (A) capital
and (B) labor.
I
would support such taxation legislation only under the condition that
it be apportioned according to the population of the states, that it
go through the amendment process, and that it not authorize the
president or the Congress to wield some new powers to levy taxes
which have no constitutional precedent.
3. A
(The
federal government has the Constitutional authority to enforce an
individual right to keep and bear arms; but not to require
registration of firearms ownership, limit magazine capacity or gun
features, or require waiting periods for weapon purchases)
The
federal government has the constitutional authority to (A)
enforce an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is natural, fundamental, and
inalienable, and the significance of its appearance in the Bill of
Rights is that the states permitted the federal government to come
into existence only under the condition that it not interfere with
that right.
There
is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the Congress to (B)
require registration of firearms ownership,
(C) limit magazine capacity or gun features,
or (D) require waiting periods for weapons purchases.
The
only powers which the federal government has that pertain to arms are
the power to enjoin the states from prohibiting the importation of
arms and arms components, and the power to ensure that states provide
the people with equal protection under the law in regard to the right
to keep and bear arms.
4. B and D
(Federal electoral
campaign contributions and expenditures should be reported and
publicly disclosed by state governments not financed and controlled
by the Federal Election Commission, nor protected as free speech)
The federal government
has no enumerated constitutional authority to regulate campaign
contributions and expenditures, so there is no constitutional
precedent for campaign contributions to be (A) financed and
controlled by the Federal Election Commission.
This means that the right to make contributions to electoral
campaigns should be (D) restricted only by state governments.
I
do not believe that campaign contributions are (C)
protected free speech; I believe
that campaign contribution is commercial business activity. The 1st
Amendment protects the right to non-violent spoken and written
self-expression, including political speech and writing, but he
absolute freedom of expression is not enumerated in the 1st
Amendment, so the notion that campaign contribution is political
expression and therefore protected speech is invalid.
The
purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st
Amendment is to prohibit the federal government from making laws
which inhibit the freedom of speech and writing which are not
fraudulent, treasonous, slanderous, or libelous; the 1st
Amendment is designed to protect political speech. An interpretation
of the 1st
Amendment which protects the right to unlimited, undisclosed campaign
contributions does not protect political speech.
I
would support passing a constitutional amendment which requires any
entity classified as a corporate person - whether an individual, a
corporation, a labor union, a governmental agency, or some other
organization - to have both the freedom of trade associated with
corporation status and the responsibilities associated with humanity
(in addition to responsibilities to investors as the public), such as
the responsibility to provide restitution for fraud, and the
responsibility to be transparent about campaign donations.
In
summary, while the only solution which is currently constitutional is
(D) restriction on a state-by-state basis, I
would support abolishing the F.E.C., and I would propose a
constitutional amendment which explicitly authorizes the federal
government to restrict campaign contributions and expenditures as
commercial business activity, by
requiring (B) the reporting and public disclosure
of federal electoral campaign contributions and expenditures.
5. C and D
(Children's parents
and local school boards should decide what is a proper education for
children; not the state education boards, nor the federal Department
of Education)
The proper education for
children should be decided primarily by (C) the child's parents
and (D) the local school boards;
not by (A) the Department of Education
or (B) the state education boards.
This
is because there is no enumerated authority in the Constitution for
the federal government to regulate education, and because powers not
vested in the federal government are retained by the states and the
people.
Constitutionally, the
authority to regulate education is vested in the people and the
states. The purpose of having territories of policy influence be
clearly delineated amongst the states and the federal government is
to ensure that most governance is done near the people it governs,
and that a community of people should govern itself instead of a
distant authority (whether foreign or central).
Therefore it follows
that local solutions should be chosen so long as they are not only
close but also sufficiently competent to make decisions. This is why
I support giving the most decision-making authority regarding child
education to (C) the child's parents,
followed by (D) the local school boards,
and lastly (B) the state education boards. I
would vote to abolish the federal Department of Education, and I
would only support federal regulation of education in a case in which
it were to be passed as a constitutional amendment.
6. B
(From
the current level, federal government spending should decrease,
returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments
and/or tax decreases rather than increase or be set at some
undetermined level)
Federal
government spending should (B) decrease, returning any
surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax
decreases. I would not favor (A
and C) increasing
spending because I believe that we can and should reduce spending and
eventually reduce taxes without
ceasing federal involvement in any programs which cannot be
administered without the assistance of the federal government.
I
would not favor (D)
setting spending at whatever level is necessary to fund
worthwhile government programs,
because I feel that this attitude reflects a lack of principles about
the proper role, size, and scope of government, and that it is a
slippery slope to lack of fiscal restraint, deficits, and unfunded
liabilities.
As
such, I would support efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment,
and I would enthusiastically consider – but be cautious to approve
– any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance-type legislation.
7. A
and C
(I
favor both bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements to reduce barriers
to trade; rather than favoring America first in every way possible or
supporting and protecting industries which are in trouble)
With
respect to international commerce, I favor both (A)
multi-lateral and (C)
bilateral agreements and
treaties to reduce barriers to trade such as quotas and tariffs.
I
believe that it would not be wise to support (D) America
first in every way possible or
to (B) support and protect industries which are in trouble
because for a country to consider only its own interests and not the
interests of other nations, and to favor itself and its industries –
and choose itself and its industries as winners in the market – is
to flaunt the fundamental rules of free markets, which is fair
competition where no one is a dictator and no one is under duress.
Nations
must reduce barriers to trade – such as quotas and tariffs – in
order to foster an environment of free and fair trade and friendly
competition, without the corruption of government subsidies, favors,
bailouts, and protectionism.
I
would support efforts to make both (A) multi-lateral
and (C) bilateral
agreements and treaties to reduce barriers to trade, in order to
promote economic freedom and good economic and social relations with
foreign nations.
8. B
and C, and A under certain conditions
(U.S.
military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and
imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our
legitimate
national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are
related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of
injury to U.S. citizens.
Intervention
is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by
Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international
community)
A
U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified (B)
when a clear and imminent threat is evident
and (C) after Congress declares war.
Intervention would not be justified (D) before there is any
risk of injury to U.S. citizens,
because there would not be (B) evidence of a clear and
imminent threat.
To
support U.S. military intervention in other nations (A)
whenever a national interest is at stake
is to risk supporting the use of military force to protect American
business interests and properties in other countries.
It
is to risk the lives and livelihoods of American soldiers, American
civilians, and civilians in foreign nations alike, by entangling the
United States in wars for oil, political and military power, gains
from war profiteering, and control of banking and currency in Middle
Eastern nations and other countries around the world.
The
U.S. should only intervene in other nations militarily when (A)
its national interests are at stake
(but only when those interests favor lives over corruptible business
influence) or when specifically asked by the international community,
(B) when a
clear and imminent threat is evident
(but not (D) before
there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens),
and (C) after Congress declares war.
9. A
(I favor national
service which is strictly voluntary; not national service which is
compulsory for military needs, nor required for community benefit,
nor discriminatory towards non-heterosexuals)
To
have military service which is (B) compulsory for military
needs and/or (C)
required for community benefit
is to undermine the original intent of the 2nd
Amendment, which was to protect the right of conscientious objection
(as the right to bear arms whether serving in an organized or
unorganized militia).
A
war or military intervention which our leaders in the national
government have to sell to the American people through manufacturing
false threats and unsubstantiated rumors asking foreign leaders to
prove a negative, and which cannot get enough popular support in
Congress or enough military volunteers, is not a war which we should
commit to fighting without re-evaluating our objectives, and it is
not a war which we should spend a great amount of our resources
fighting due to the risk of war profiteering through mercenary and
infrastructure contracting.
I do not favor (D)
limiting national service to male heterosexuals
because I support the right of all Americans – homosexuals
included – to be free from discrimination in the public sector,
which includes the military and all government agencies.
10. B
and C
(Drugs,
chemicals, and foods which may have harmful side effects should be
either well-labeled and available to adults, or available with a
physician's prescription; that decision should be made at the state
and local levels. Potentially harmful foods and drugs should not be
banned or controlled by the federal government, nor should they be
protected by liability limits)
There
is no constitutionally enumerated power for (A) the
Congress to control, limit, or ban potentially harmful goods. I favor
abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, and I would only favor
federal involvement in foods and drugs if the authority to regulate
were implemented according to a bill which went through the amendment
process and became part of the Constitution.
I
would support (B) requiring a physician's prescription and
state regulation. The states do
not have the right to place outright bans on the import and export of
particular goods, because that action interferes with interstate
commerce; the free flow of goods among the several states. However,
states do have the
right to place restrictions and conditions upon the purchase, sale,
ownership, etc. of goods, provided that those restrictions and
conditions do not effectively prohibit commerce in such good(s).
I
do not support (D) protecting producers of harmful goods
with liability limits because I
believe that such limits constitute an assault on the freedom of
juries to award the compensation they deem appropriate; juries'
rights are needed to protect the well-being of victims of private
interests, government, and common criminals alike.
I
would support a combination of (B) and
(C): potentially
harmful goods should be either available well-labeled to adults, or
requiring a physician's prescription. I would argue that that
decision – pertaining to each possibly harmful food or drug –
should be done at the most local competent level of government, with
no state being free to interrupt interstate commerce or prohibit
intrastate manufacture of any good.
11. None
of the above
(The
federal government should engage in neither standardizing claims
related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for
National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in -
nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol)
There
is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the federal
government to regulate the environment; therefore there is no
constitutional authority for the Environmental Protection Agency, for
the federal government to (A) standardize claims related to
clean air and water, (B)
purchase additional land for National Parks,
or (C) protect endangered species.
Several
years ago, actions by the E.P.A. actually served to lower
clean air standards, when a third of the states were prevented from
raising their motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards. I would vote
to support the abolition of the E.P.A. because it is
unconstitutional, it standardizes mediocrity, and the states have the
authority and the will to implement high (A) standards for
clean air and water themselves,
as well as to set examples for the nation in that area.
It
is not a proper role of the federal government to (D)
participate in and pressure other nations to participate in the
Kyoto Protocol. The United
States should not be a member of the United Nations as it is, because
it subverts our sovereignty (the co-equal sovereignty of our states'
and national governments) by positioning international law as supreme
above national law.
I
believe that the Congress should make treaties and engage
diplomatically with foreign national governments, but it should
primarily be done bilaterally and multilaterally instead of with all
recognized worldwide sovereigns at once. This style of
decision-making gives undue advantages and disadvantages for
countries large and small, rich and poor, and weak and powerful
alike.
In
summary, I would leave the responsibility to (B) protect
and own land now owned by the national government
– and the responsibility to protect endangered species – up to
the states and the localities, rather than to the federal government.
I would support legislation providing for federal regulation of the
environment provided that such legislation were to go through the
amendment process and become part of the Constitution.
12. C
(Congress's
power to provide for the general welfare means that the federal
government should exercise power over issues that affect the entire
U.S. population; not that business interests, social welfare, nor
any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or group of
people, should justify federal spending)
Congress's
power to provide for general welfare means that (C) the
federal government should exercise power over issues that jeopardize
the safety of the entire U.S. population.
There
is no explicit power of Congress to “provide for the common good”,
and the power to provide for the “general welfare” is often
misinterpreted. “General welfare” does not mean vague
welfare; that is, it does not
mean (D) any government that can help citizens.
It
does also not mean (A) protecting, bailing out, and giving
favors to businesses and industries
or (B) providing
all citizens with a minimum income.
The “general welfare” means “the good of all (or nearly all)
people in the country”.
This
interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is essential to
preventing runaway federal spending on national projects that benefit
only one area of the nation, or customers and owners of - and
investors in – certain businesses.
A
bridge that would only be used by a handful of people a day in
Alaska, and a public transit system in Madison, Wisconsin that would
be used by a hundred thousand people a day,
et cetera, do not
benefit all or nearly all American citizens. How those projects are
funded should reflect that fact, as well as the principles of local
and decentralized government upon which our structure of government
was based.
Top
three issues or themes for my campaign:
- Individual Rights and Local Government
- A Diverse Market for Government
- Antitrust Against Monopolies and Cartels
For
more entries on Oregon politics, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment