A New Platform (if you want my vote)

     I've been meaning to log on and post something new for quite some time but obviously that didn't happen.  I constructed this list of planks (platform) last spring.  I was trying to think of a system of deciding who to vote for in the future and I thought I would need a list of things that a candidate would need to embrace (how's that for a lib-term) in order to EARN  my vote.  First of all, don't forget -- if the candidate is an incumbent then I'm concerned with how they have voted and/or governed in the past, NOT what they say now that a large contingent of the American people have wakened, but what their past actions say to me, the voter.  I'm not saying that they will have to agree with me 100% but that they be an high enough percentage of a solution that I individually have decided is acceptable.  That is an individual decision at which each American will need to arrive.

Plank #1

The U.S. is to remain sovereign in all aspects.  No submission to international law except when dealing specifically with other sovereign nations (historic int'l law).  Never in regards to our citizenry.  No submission to the United Nations in any way.

Plank #2

The U.S. Constitution should be amended with a Balanced Budget Amendment designed to protect the American People and its interests.

Plank #3

The U.S. Constitution should be amended with an Amendment limiting the terms of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the U.S. Senate.

Plank #4

Overhaul of tax law (FairTax or a flat tax would be acceptable).  FairTax only to be implemented in the event that the 16th Amendment is repealed.

Plank #5

Immigration

a. SECURE the border(s)

b. Deport ALL illegals (not referring to Mexicans or other Central Americans specifically) - no amnesty = Fairness and Rule of Law re-established.

c. Overhaul quota system. After the uncontrolled flow of illegal immigration is halted we can assess the needs of our nation in accordance with current labor trends thereby allowing many more people in legally from around the world -- in accordance with the needs of and for the benefit of the American people.

Plank #6

Only legislate Constitutional environmental/conservation laws that:

a. Respects commerce - find solutions not simply problems!

b. Respects resources owned by the American people.

c. Respects private property.

d. Take power back for the EPA and establishing DUE Process into the environmental equation.

Plank #7

Begin to create legislation to return power to the several states.  Return to Constitutional principles (I don't mean original only but with 14th Amendment and all others, they too are the U.S. Constitution.)  Illegalize unfunded mandates for example.

Plank #8

In the interest of Plank #7:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  Causing U.S. Senators to be elected by the people created a slightly more powerful House of Representatives.  It caused our country to go away from the Federalist model, the interests of the States were no longer represented in our system.  That is how the uninformed public have elected themselves so many freebies from the Federal Government, quite often at the expense of the states.

Plank #9

a.  Tie Congressional salaries to national economic performance, thereby making members of Congress shareholders in the interests of our nation as a whole.  I'm not enough of an economics guru to suggest a specific formula but it could contain things such as GDP, Wall Street, Rise and fall of things like national debt, deficits, trade deficits, etc.

b. Members of Congress must return to the private sector after serving.  Within the private sector they may not be employed by any entity over which they received campaign donations (unless they were employed with them before serving).  Furthermore, they may not be employed within any industry governed/regulated by any committees in which they served, and they may not perform as a lobbyist or be employed by any lobbying group. These restrictions will be in force for a length of time equivalent to that which they served in Congress.

c.  All unspent campaign finances will be returned to contributors on a ratio equivalent to (total contributions:contribution of individual contributor).

Plank #10

a. Require ALL legislation to begin with a Constitutional justification a line item #1, and line item # 2 should be a statement expressing the drafter's intent.

b.  During ALL debate the actual drafter (writer or writers) of ALL legislation should be present for Q&A.  The particulars of who/what/when/where and contact information to everyone that had a direct hand in drafting legislation should be available to the public.

Plank #11

ANY candidate that wants my vote MUST be a proponent of repealing unconstitutional legislation, starting with:  TARP I & II (any unspent funds at the time of repeal); Obama's stimulus package (any unspent funds at the time of repeal); Obama's and Pelosi's Health Care "reform" legislation in totality.  

This platform is designed to:

1. Unite

2. Create a U-Turn in America's direction.

3. Address the disease, not the symptoms.

I welcome comments and suggestions.  I want the reader however to keep in mind that my goals with this platform is not to address specifics but to return power to the states and the people in a way that we can begin to address the multitude of issues that ail our Republic.

Thanks for reading,

Tom 

Obama's Speaks about his Constitutional Philosophy

On Jan. 18, 2001, then-state senator Barack Obama appeared on a public radio chat show to discuss "The Courts and Civil Rights."

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.  Obama added, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

It isn't a shock to me that there are some out there that believe this way in regards to our Constitution, what is a shock to me is that someone that believes this way can plainly state it and then get elected President of the United States.  It isn't groundbreaking for a Conservative like me to say that the Constitution isn't a living document.  It IS a document that will and can adapt through the processes placed inside it to any future circumstances in that it allows for our legislative process and the Amendment process.  The idea of it simply being twisted in a way that would make Cirque du Soleil performers humbled is terrifying.  Those that interpret our Constitution the way our current President does are not confident it can be changed through legitimate constitutional mechanisms.  I invite the opposition to openly and plainly petition the American people for Amendments as Obama would like them.  I'm not scared of the will of the American people.  The American people as a whole are not ideological, but they are governed by common sense and a sense of self-interest (not selfishness, there is a big difference) that will not allow them to agree with a redistribution of wealth scheme or a scheme that would openly take away their freedoms.

President Obama, our Constitution IS a charter of negative freedoms because it was designed to govern a free people.  For instance, the negative rights that tell the Federal government what it can't do also allow the States or the people to decidedly DO those things (refer to the 9th and 10th amendments).  For instance, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for Universal Health Care, Government-run Health Care, Government-controlled Health Care, a Right to Health Care, a Patient's Bill of Rights, or anything of the kind unless you torture the 'general welfare,' 'interstate commerce,' or the 'necessary and proper' clauses to death.  However, the polity of any particular state could get together and vote in such a thing, much like Massachussetts did under Mitt Romney.  If you take this example to its Constitutional conclusion you can see that we would have 50 different laboratories around the country to try out any idea that a FREE people decide to try, and its possible that ALL 50 might decide to do such a thing but the federal government has NO RIGHT!   The biggest restriction upon the states is that they are Constutionally required to maintain a republican form of government.  Most people don't understand that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would simply allow each state to decide for itself whether or not to allow abortion to be legal, it would not illegalize abortion but would leave it up to the people of that particular state.  Also, legalization of marijuana and other drugs.  Imagine a constitutional America where the the upper NW like Oregon and Washington legalized pot and abortion but the SE U.S. is still no-drugs and no-abortion.  Imagine what that would be like, a country where we stand united against the world and for our allies but we have the freedom to live how we see fit by exercising our vote, our voice or ultimately, our feet (by moving to a state that reflects our views).  I believe THAT is a simplified example of the vision our Founder's saw, modernized.  Its also called 'Federalism.'

Once again I would love to see your comments here at the Guerrilla Conservative.

Thanks,

Tom

Left and Right Parameters

I've been thinking lately that I wish America would return back to the good ol' conservative days of JFK. Sounds funny doesn't it? If you examine JFK's policies he would be to the right of the rightest of major presidential candidates as of late. This thought led me to the realization that even liberals can be constitutional, that there exists left and right parameters of the U.S. Constitution, not just one correct interpretation. Don't confuse what I'm saying with the theory of a "living" U.S. Constitution. However, within correct constitutional thought there can be a genuine productive discussion amongst those, left and right thinking, that love and believe in the primacy of the U.S. Constitution amongst the governing documents of the world.

I would like, if and when readers show at this humble blog, to begin a discussion amongst liberals and conservatives to define the left and right parameters on an issue basis. For example, the commerce clause; I think any honest constitutional historian would admit that the commerce clause has been stretched beyond all legitimacy in order to justify certain governmental actions. Forget Republican and Democrat, I don't want this to be a political discussion but instead to be a issue-based, constitutional history based and most of all, logically based discussion of the legitimate actions of a U.S. Constitution founded governement.

As most of you would guess when you read this and notice the date on which it was posted, I believe that almost all of the provisions of TARP I, (W's bank bailout), Obama's Stimulus Package, the Auto Industry Bailout, Mortgage Foreclosure assistance, and any such proposals in the future are ALL unconstitutional. I know, I know, I know that if taken to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) these bills would probably be upheld almost certainly based upon the commerce clause and the contortions it has been put through, purely based upon stare decisis.

There are legitimate ways to stretch the Constitution to fit the particulars of modern day events, however, this is not it.

Let's talk,
Tom