Thursday, November 7, 2013

Republican Liberty Caucus Federal Candidate Questionnaire

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






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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Response to the Illinois Green Party's State Candidate Questionnaire for the 2024 Election

      The following is my response to the Illinois Green Party's questionnaire to aid in the vetting of candidates for the Illinois Gene...