Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS
POSITION STATEMENT

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.  

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following principles:

1.0 FEDERALISM

1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

2.0 EDUCATION

2.1 The U. S. Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
2.2 Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

3.0 HEALTH CARE

3.1 Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.
3.2 The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.

4.0 TAXATION

4.1 The tax system of the United States should be overhauled.
4.2 There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.
4.3 The capital gains tax should be *eliminated*.
4.4 The inheritance tax should be *eliminated*.
4.5 The new tax system should be implemented *promptly*.

5.0 WELFARE

5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.
5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.

6.0 CRIMINAL JUSTICE

6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
6.2 All people, regardless of position in the public or private sector, should be held equally accountable under the law.
6.3 The *only* litmus test for Supreme Court or other judges should be their determination to accurately interpret, not amend, the Constitution. Judges have *no* authority to make new law.

7.0 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

7.1 Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
7.2 No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members' expressed consent.
7.3 All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
7.4 There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.

8.0 FEDERAL BUDGET

8.1 There should be an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, provided it includes a supermajority requirement to raise taxes and provided it does not empower the judiciary to unilaterally raise taxes.
8.2 Honest accounting dictates that all federal expenditures should be on budget.
8.3 Each budget should be derived based upon the justification for and needs of each program, with no program being either budgeted for or increased automatically.

9.0 GOVERNMENT REFORM

9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.2 The National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.3 The National Endowment for the Humanities should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.4 The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.5 Subsidies to agricultural and other businesses should be eliminated.
9.6 Corporate taxes should be eliminated simultaneously and proportionally with the elimination of subsidies to businesses.
9.7 Recommendations by the Grace Commission and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) should be reviewed and implemented, where possible, beginning immediately.
9.8 Privatization of government assets, management and services should be implemented for cost-effectiveness wherever applicable.

10.0 TRADE

10.1 The U. S. government should inhibit neither the exportation of U. S. goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
10.2 The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.

11.0 DEFENSE

11.1 U. S. military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital U. S. interests and only with the consent of the U. S. Congress.
11.2 It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks.
11.3 No branch of the military should be put in harm's way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory.
11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command.
11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer.
11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated.
11.7 Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.

12.0 PROPERTY RIGHTS

12.1 The government should not take private property without just compensation.
12.2 All unconstitutional regulation of private property should be repealed.

13.0 DRUGS

13.1 While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
13.2 Per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
13.3 All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.

Entered into the record December 8, 2000


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: banglist; positionstatement; rlc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-262 next last
To: HAL9000
Hal wrote
"This would be a Constitutional way to prohibit contributions from resident aliens, convicted felons, unions, corporations, etc. However, they would be free to make independent expenditures."
Why shouldn't individuals and groups of individuals (corporations) be free to give to whomever they wish, whenever they wish? Obviously, resident aliens and foreigners should be excluded.
-Pete
141 posted on 07/26/2002 8:23:42 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Although the RLC is officially neutral on the question of abortion, I would venture to say that the vast majority of RLCers are pro-life. I myself am very prolife, and I see no conflict or dichotomy with participating in an organization that is neutral on the issue.
I believe that abortion is not and should not be a litmus test for participation in the RLC. Our end goal here is smaller government, and more individual freedom.
For more info on the principled, libertarian position on abortion, visit Libertarians for Life:
http://www.L4L.org
142 posted on 07/26/2002 8:33:27 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radical4capitalism
I can respect that. But would the RLC support the separate states making an enforceable decision at their level on the issues? I'm of the same thought on drug enforcement. I do not believe it is the right of the general government to enforce or enact drug laws. However I do believe the states can and should enforce their own separate drug laws. Several problems I do see arising with that however. One being that certain states would have a disproportionate amount of their budget spent on drug enforcement (i.e. Florida, California, New York)
143 posted on 07/26/2002 8:51:46 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"I would also like to see the RLC take a pro-life stance."

If the abortion industry weren't tax-subsidized, and if they weren't de facto exempted from criminal investigations, they'd fall on their own. Neutrality doesn't bother me as much as it used to. No funding. And their crimes (which they can't help but commit, by their very nature) aren't ignored. That's a has-teeth combo.

144 posted on 07/26/2002 9:20:46 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; DougLorenz; the irate magistrate; RightOnTheLeftCoast; bluefish; logos; Fred Mertz; ..
To All:

This has been an interesting thread. And, it goes to prove a point I have been trying to make these past few years: There are a lot of people out there who do not understand the concept of Liberty or what the Founding Father's original intent was when they wrote our Constitution -- and they do not know that they do not know. Unfortunately, some of these people also feel that the freedom of others can and should be curtailed by government at the point of a gun.

Part of the problem is they were never taught that the federal government was intended to be one of limited powers. That is, those powers not specifically tasked to the federal government by the Constitution are to be left to the individual States, or to the people collectively. So, for instance, when the federal government wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, Congress realized that the Constitution gave them no such power. Therefore, they needed to pass a Constitutional amendment first.

There was no such amendment passed for the misdirected war on drugs. Yet, we allow this unconstitutional malfeasance to continue unabated. Sixty or seventy years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told the federal government that it ordinarily may not even try a perpetrator for murder. Except in a very few cases, law enforcement functions belong to the States.

Today, the federal government is so corrupt that it actually takes some law enforcement cases away from the States because federal law provided harsher penalties. Even worse, the federal government sometimes even puts citizens in double jeopardy for the same crime.

And can anyone point to Constructional authorization for those 114 independent federal regulatory agencies that write 50 times more law (rules and regulations) every year than Congress? Of course not! The Constitution states just the opposite, in fact. Read the very first sentence.

In other words, today's federal government has mutated into a government that does pretty much anything it wants, with absolutely no restraints by common sense, the common law or the Constitution.

The fact is, most RLC members believe this is wrong. Totally wrong! And, our goal is to change it.

Our marching orders were written over 200 years ago by folks like Washington, Madison and Jefferson. Along with the Federalist Papers, there are reams of documents explaining how the central government was intended to be operated.

Back then, all of the Founding Fathers supported individual Liberty. The members of the Republican Liberty Caucus do today. That some misguided American citizens do not is neither here nor there. We do and we are banding together to work towards that end.

That debating society known as the Libertarian Party makes some excellent points. To say that many of the Founding Fathers would tend towards libertarian were they alive today is an understatement. The whole concept of our Constitutional form of government is to support individual Liberty and to institute that form of government that would "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

Clearly, we have our work set out for us if we are to educate the people on Liberty. And, this thread tends to demonstrate that perfectly.

There will always be Johnny-One-Note nit-pickers around, of course. Some of that is expected. Our problem, then, is to educate them on where their criticism is best placed.

Unfortunately, there are also so called Republicans who use the Party structure for their own gains and care nothing about Liberty. Obviously, these people are not suitable RLC candidates and need not be advised of our activities.

We are, after all, also working for great changes within the Republican Party. Therefore, as RLC members, one important function is that we also stay active within the Republican Party and make our voices heard in all policy issues.

I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.

145 posted on 07/26/2002 9:30:05 AM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor; Jim Robinson; one_particular_harbour; pocat; Mercuria; Fred Mertz; logos
Well said Doug.

Thank you!

146 posted on 07/26/2002 9:58:50 AM PDT by the irate magistrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: toenail
toenail wrote: "If the abortion industry weren't tax-subsidized, and if they weren't de facto exempted from criminal investigations, they'd fall on their own. Neutrality doesn't bother me as much as it used to. No funding. And their crimes (which they can't help but commit, by their very nature) aren't ignored. That's a has-teeth combo."

That's an excellent point, toenail. Of course, the RLC is adamantly opposed to any form of taxpayer subsidies for abortions.
-Pete Krembs
147 posted on 07/26/2002 10:10:20 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor; the irate magistrate; Jim Robinson
Dang, Doug! I didn't have a quibble with a word you said until the very last...

...I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.

I certainly understand why you think the abortion debate is misplaced in this thread; however, for the very same reason I believe it to be germane. Here's why:

Roe vs. Wade and subsequent supporting decisions from the USSC, as wrongly as they were decided, did make abortion a de facto federal matter, if not de jure. Those sophists in long, black robes turned what was (and still is, by any legal logic) a State issue into a Federal issue by finding a non-existent "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.

There are many reasons to oppose abortion more important than its patent illegallity, all based on morality and ethics, but because the USSC put abortion into the Constitution, the Republican Liberty Caucus [IMO] should have some concern about taking it out, don't you think?

And Jim, thanks for offering this discussion.

148 posted on 07/26/2002 10:16:48 AM PDT by logos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
Excellent post, Doug. It's a shame that many "conservatives" go around invoking Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers to support completely unconstitutional garbage like the PATRIOT Act and prohibiting flag burning.

-Pete Krembs
149 posted on 07/26/2002 10:17:01 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
Excellent post, Doug. It's a shame that many "conservatives" go around invoking Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers to support completely unconstitutional garbage like the PATRIOT Act and prohibiting flag burning.

-Pete Krembs
150 posted on 07/26/2002 10:18:09 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: the irate magistrate
Well . . . Howdy Irate One! How are things in Bluegrass Country?

Wish I was there. Life is much too busy here -- too much traffic and way too many people. I'm ready to move down to that little Burg on the river we talked about. Just can't right now due to family matters.

Hope y'all keep us well informed about the great results of the Kentucky contingent of the RLC. You guys are what's happening! People need to know that.

151 posted on 07/26/2002 10:32:16 AM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: logos
There are many reasons to oppose abortion more important than its patent illegallity, all based on morality and ethics, but because the USSC put abortion into the Constitution, the Republican Liberty Caucus [IMO] should have some concern about taking it out, don't you think?


Generally speaking, yes. However, I fail to see how RLC -- as a club -- can do that. True, many of us would like to do it. But I see no means, method or opportunity here. Part of that will come after educating more people.

And, as part of the whole of that issue, I propose that we work towards making government schools stop teaching deviancy as acceptable behavior to our children. That is something that is doable within the next couple years and most definitely points to the core of the problem.

Meanwhile . . . so many issues, so little time. . . . .

152 posted on 07/26/2002 10:49:19 AM PDT by Doug Fiedor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: radical4capitalism
See the Life Dynamics links on my profile page. It's absolutely astounding that the abortion industry says, and I quote, "That's how they're going to win," and the "Culture of Life" Neville Chamberlains just retreat. Abortionists are scum, and there's no denying it. They're bottom of the barrel, and they're incompetent and manifestly unethical. It takes a vocal oddball (e.g. Brian "clit-flick" Finkel) for anyone to take action, but if the laws were enforced, most, if not all, abortionists would be in jail. Medicaid fraud, etc.,........ Keep your Roe v. Wade, build a shrine to butchery, have Babs Boxer ramble on about the joys of child decapitation.... Doesn't matter a bit, if abortionists are in jail for their recognized crimes, or if the facilities are bankrupted.
153 posted on 07/26/2002 10:58:20 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I am not saying Libertarians are immoral. I am saying they won't take a moral stand.
154 posted on 07/26/2002 11:06:31 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"I am not saying Libertarians are immoral. I am saying they won't take a moral stand."

Explain.

155 posted on 07/26/2002 11:17:41 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
RW wrote: "I am saying they won't take a moral stand."

Oh, I disagree. I am a libertarian and I take many moral positions-- including "Thou shalt not steal". I just happen to think that this commandment applies to the government (income taxes and welfare) and those in power as well.
156 posted on 07/26/2002 11:46:18 AM PDT by radical4capitalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
My intent is to vote out as many Democrats as possible. This means replacing them with Republicans.
157 posted on 07/26/2002 11:47:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I am saying they won't take a moral stand.

So you are saying I won't take a moral stand? You are saying that you are more moral than I am because you say YOU will take a moral stand and I won't?

158 posted on 07/26/2002 12:16:32 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Doug Fiedor
Well, actually ...

My first priority would be to make it a requirement that the Federal government stop spending money when there is a budgetary shortfall instead of raising taxes to "cover" the new (and always excessive) spending.

In fact, I'd be willing to help start a movement. I receive a pension. If it would apply to everyone across the board - NO exceptions, NONE - I'd willingly take a 5% cut in my pension. IOW, cut all spending programs - ALL spending programs - 5%.

The only exception would have nothing to do with individuals or their needs, but would be solely contingent upon national defense. After all, war does seem to make a difference. Other than that one exception, cut every item on the federal budget by 5%.

How's that for a plan, eh?

[Of course, this has about as much chance of happening as me adding two inches in height and dropping another 25 pounds in weight...]

159 posted on 07/26/2002 12:25:54 PM PDT by logos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: toenail
You won't declare abortion wrong, etc.
160 posted on 07/26/2002 12:39:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-262 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson