Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Ballot Access and Questionnaires

Now that we have completed the push to get signatures, I may enter campaign mode. Aside from myself, we got 3 Libertarians on the ballot for state assembly in the Kenosha/Racine area, George Meyers, Anthony Decubellis and Daane Hoffman.

I am both willing and eager to push for access to newspapers, TV and such. However, I believe I will need to make a stand this year. Some of these questionnaires are sickening. I will not name names, but I find that most special interest groups seem to despise the states. They want this national law or that national law.

The worst seems to be pro-life groups that I would love to support, but their views are tough for a libertarian to manage. For example, early on they ask in a questionnaire if I feel that abortion is wrong except in the case of saving the mother's life, rape or incest. I can agree with those positions.

Then they will ask if I support overruling Roe v. Wade. I agree with that, but at that point I am done as a federal candidate. Once abortion is in the hands of the states, the feds need to back the heck off!

However, they want all sorts of federal intervention into the states' business even if Roe v Wade is made void. Their position is completely inconsistent with the Constitution. If you accept states have the power, I agree. However, you cannot pick and choose when to follow the Constitution in order to get your agenda completed.

I will offer that I will resist any effort for federal funding of abortion. I find that is abhorrent in the most basic sense. You cannot tax people to pay for the activities of others, let alone taxing people to fund activities they find morally offensive. The government does not have any power that individual citizens do not have. A woman does not have the right to barge into a church and rob a person at gunpoint to pay for her abortion. Similarly, the government cannot use it's force to make that same church going citizen pay for another person's abortion.

The pro-gun lobby is a little better, but they have to throw in the idea that a federal law must be passed in order to force other states to allow concealed carry for residents of other states with possibly very different criteria for concealed carry. I would never expect a foreign nation to accept Wisconsin's open carry rules, why should I expect other states to? Concealed carry is the same thing. I would love to see states have reciprocal laws, but that is something for the state legislatures to hammer out. That decision must not come from DC.

As for guns, the 2nd Amendment is pretty damn clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The key thing to remember is that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the states. The only real issue is how far does the 14th Amendment go in making states buckle under the authority of the federal government?

Is a permit infringing? I may feel so, but different states may have different rules. Obviously infringing in my view would be banning, limiting the types of firearms, impossible paper work ( too difficult for most to comply ) or any fees that make it prohibitive to own firearms.

I feel that the 14th Amendment is there to keep the states from becoming tyrannical towards their entire population or specific groups. The clear reason for the 14th Amendment was the fear that blacks would be second class citizens and I agree with that point of view. I do not, however, want the states to be mere puppets of the federal government. As long as a state makes their rules uniform and do not pass laws that make a owning guns impossible due to regulation or expense, I feel the federal government should stay out of it. I do agree with the recent Supreme Court rulings that a city cannot simply ban a class of weapons completely, leaving their citizens ripe for abuse from the criminal element.

Liberty, Peace and Prosperity
Liberty + Peace = Prosperity


George Meyers said...

Hi, Joe.

The Fourteenth Amendment has some structural problems. Theoretically it seem valid, but the "unintended consequence" is that it allows the US Supreme Court to second guess the State Supreme Courts, virtually taking over jurisdiction of State Laws.

Under the system the way it was intended to operate, except for the few specified in the Constitution itself, the States have sovereign power over their own laws.

The 14th generalizes federal power over the states, a violation of James Madison's guarantee to the States in Federalist Paper #45.

Anonymous said...

When people say that citizens should not be asked/demanded to pay (via taxes) for something they find morally wrong, how far should that go? Can I elect to not finance a war that I don't feel comfortable with? How about capital punishment if my state allows it? I am assuming that moral objection would apply to state as well as federal laws. If not, why just abortion?

I hate to say that you kind of just sound like a republican or a teaparty advocate as much as you do a libertarian.

Joseph Kexel said...

I do not understand how I can be seen as a Republican. I think that abortion is a state issue, that is the most important take away. If states wish to fund abortions, they can try, but many of their citizens will object and may move away. With states you may leave when they go beyond your moral compass. Where will you escape to when the feds do it? My position is that the federal government has no authority to take money from US citizens to pay for abortions in the other states. If a state wants it, it must make the case to its own citizens.

I am a federal candidate which believes in states's rights. If you dislike paying for things in your state, it is YOUR responsibility to change your state. The feds cannot force your state to behave in any manner not allowed in the US Constitution. I support repealing 1913 and the 14th Amendment, so I cannot help you from DC to force your state into some national consensus.

As for war, I do not support the Federal Reserve, so without a credit card to wage war, the people will be taxed immediately or will need to buy bonds.

I strongly believe that when war is not put on a credit card, there will far less of it. We, also, must declare wars through Congress. Republicans failed to do that for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you are strongly against a war, then you may need to stop paying your taxes and risk prison. That is not a very easy decision to make and the fact we have the Federal Reserve to print up cash to pay for wars hides the reality too much. Without the Fed, your taxes will rise or they will need to sell the war to you so you buy the bonds. War is supposed to be rare. That fact people need to worry about the endless wars their tax money supports shows how far off the path we have gone.

As a libertarian I completely oppose capital punishment. The state does not have the authority to take a life except in self defense. If you truly object to your state doing it, then fight to change it or move. That is your moral choice. Even a declaration of war is a justification that the war about to be waged is an act of self-defense for the other country is unfairly affecting our sovereignty. I am pretty sure, "We want your oil!" would not suffice for the American people.

People must see a far different paradigm than what they are used to in order to understand my position.