Skip to comments.REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following principles:
1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
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.
4.1 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income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.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*.
5.1 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.
10.1 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.
11.1 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.
13.1 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
Quoted from the Republican Liberty Caucus News thread posted earlier:
"In this election cycle, for example, California's Reagan-style Bill Simon was the come-from-behind landslide winner against the establishment-supported mainstream RINO favorite. This was no surprise to the RLC, which was the first national organization to endorse Simon's campaign -- about a year before the primary! And the RLC worked hard to ensure Simon's nomination, including telephone-bank efforts mounted in the Bay Area(3), which Simon amazingly carried, despite the region's well-known liberalism"
I believe these are in conflict with the congressional power in the Constitution to call out the militia and the presidential power to command that militia. The militia, by law, is the armed citizenry. (An important issue in the gun debate.)
It might require an amendment removing the congressional and the presidential powers regarding the militia. (relevant also in the section on the draft.) Removing these from the Constitution would probably be a bad idea since they are provisions for extreme national emergency.
Art 1 (legislative), Sec 1: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Art 2 (executive), Sec 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
- Financial contributions to candidates campaigns should be restricted to registered voters. -
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.
I would clarify that the WWII type arrangement where Monty was under Eisenhower but also had U.S. units under himself in the Allied Effort in Europe would be acceptable. (I believe both D-Day and the Bulge saw Monty with US forces under his control.)
There are various words used: attached, operational control, etc., that need clarification in this kind of setting.
A serious idea which merits careful concideration. I haven't seen it proposed precisely that way before.
The topic must be embarrassing to many people.
The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.
However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.
What is the RLC's position on abortion?
Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.
In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.
Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!
Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.
That was my next question...
Not possible for me to ascertain. I received no response. He might be busy.
But he wouldn't want to upset some of the facists that have become FR's bread and butter as of late.
I couldn't make an educated guess about the first part, but I can say from personal experience that infinite amounts of lying, flame baiting and other site degradation is allowed to an organized cadre of authoritarians.
I'll leave the speculation about why to others, but it sure is confounding when the exact same behavior is met with post deletions and suspensions when practiced by others. Hard to figure.
I missed that part, where can it be found?
He has a huge balancing act going on. I assure you he's a lot closer to your outlook on life and further from any "bushbot" than you think.
The mean the "successful" drug control policy that classifies bottled water and glowsticks as "drug paraphenalia"?
The "successful" drug control policy that drove the price of MDMA in the US up to $30 a tab, wheras in the Netherlands, where MDMA is produced, it only costs $3 a tab?
Oh yeah, that "successful" drug control policy...
Prohibition I mean, the "War on Drugs"...
Having said that, taking no position is not a pro-abortion postion, except in the eyes of a very small minority.
I have not attempted to characterize Mr. Robinson's postions one way or the other.
I'm glad you're anti abortion. Most members of the Constitution Party are also anti abortion, at least the ones I know here in Colorado. But when people take a neutral stand on the killing of innocent human life, especially at these early developmental stages in the woman's womb, that is tantamount to directly supporting abortion on demand and the pro choice position, or at the very least enabling this horrific procedure to continue.
Please elaborate. What is the successful nature
of the War on Drugs? How has it reduced drug
use, kept drugs out of the country, and maintained
our constitutional rights? How has the constitutional separation of powers
between federal government and the states been impacted by the War on Drugs?
In your mind. But not in mine.
What you are saying is that no group can organize to work toward certain goals if they take no position on abortion. I disagree.
And you as well. But this thread isn't about abortion. Then again, from what you have said, EVERYTHING seems to be about abortion to you.
The question is, can groups have no position on abortion while they focus on other things, or not. You seem to think not. Oh well.
PS, I used to be in a bowling league which took no position on abortion, I guess they were pro-abortion.
That's an interesting thought. How ironic, then,
that priests, bishops, and popes are called to celibacy,
denying the births of countless humans in the name
I've attempted to be civil with you, but that seems to be an effort in futilty on my part. The critical aspects of political positions taken by the Republican Liberty Caucus is exactly what's at issue on this thread and to deny that is the case, is to run from the truth. I don't expect you'll stop huffing-n-puffing, anytime soon.
If you want to compare you're bowling league with the Libertarian Party, I offer no resistence. Look, abortion is supported by Libertarian's in general. I'm a strong pro-lifer and am opposed to the libertarian philosophy in general. Your basic argument over abortion is intelliectually bankrupt. This is the political, social and cultural issue of our time. If you're too blind to see that, that's not my fault. You're pathetic.