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income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-262 next last
To: ThomasJefferson
Poor baby. Take a nap. Sleep it off. And stop crying and whining already, little man. You've lost the debate, get over it.

I'm ROTF, LMFBO at you!

61 posted on 07/25/2002 12:37:06 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You are the poster boy for what is wrong with this whole picture. How old are you son?
62 posted on 07/25/2002 12:42:16 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"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."

When your "moral" Republicans stop forcing me to hand over part of my paycheck to support Planned Parenthood, et al, then you can talk.

When "pro-life" President George Walker Bush directs HHS Director Tommy Thompson to investigate the use of taxpayer money to fund organizations who violate state laws mandating the reporting of suspected child molestation, then you can talk. When your "moral" Republicans do that, you ping me. OK?

63 posted on 07/25/2002 1:16:38 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Slip18; JR; yall
"WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility"
What does this mean to you?

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I honestly hadn't seen it before.
- slip18 -


I believe the RLC platform was posted once back in '98 by 'navigator', - but at that time I don't think it was nearly as libertarian as this position.

-- I think this is an excellent platform to build a conservative coalition upon, and one that could unify FR to a certain extent.
[I won't hold my breath tho.]
64 posted on 07/25/2002 1:21:54 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Not much fun here in Ohio either. We get marxists, neocons and RINOs as our options. I'm left with a couple libertarians to punch for or leave em balnk.

I see you aren't enthused about the Ohio governor's race either Taft (RINO) v. Hagan (Demo-Marxist) are there any third parties running, this is are rare case where I will waste my vote on one.

65 posted on 07/25/2002 1:25:40 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You think you've won a debate?
With crap like this? I doubt it:

"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?" - #18 regan man

66 posted on 07/25/2002 1:30:21 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"[I won't hold my breath tho.]"

This thread is reminding me of the thread "How Many FReepers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb."

All of us have different opinions, but we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves and unify to bring our Republic back to the way our Founding Fathers had intended our Republic to be. < /rant >

67 posted on 07/25/2002 1:38:32 PM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Like I said, you've lost the debate, little man. Get over it already. Although, something tells me, that's impossible for you. I predict more whining and crying from FReeper "Thomas Jefferson". Will you prove me wrong? We shall see.

ps- Take my advice, take a nap. Get rested. Relax. lol

68 posted on 07/25/2002 2:10:53 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Slip18; Reagan Man
-- I think this is an excellent platform to build a conservative coalition upon, and one that could unify FR to a certain extent.
[I won't hold my breath tho.]
64 by tpaine


This thread is reminding me of the thread "How Many FReepers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb."
All of us have different opinions, but we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves and unify to bring our Republic back to the way our Founding Fathers had intended our Republic to be. < /rant >


Don't let one creep like R-mam switch out that lite.
That is exactly his real agenda here, -- to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
69 posted on 07/25/2002 2:27:47 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jim Robinson; Jerry_M; OWK; Lurker
Position statement says: 11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer AND 11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated... 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.)

The Militia is, by definition, the voluntarily armed citizenry.

The Quakers have abdicated their Fatherly responsibility before God in their refusal to take up Arms in defense of their Families, but I tend to feel that they should have to answer to God for that, not the Government. The Government should not enjoy the Power to contravene the Quakers' "religious freedom" to behave like godless pacifists.

Rather, the Militia is itself a Voluntary institution, composed only of those who Volunteer to undertake their Godly Responsibilities to defend home and hearth -- and it is this "militia" which Congress constitutionally enjoys the Power to call up in time of War.

Of course, this would make it very difficult to wage Offensive Foreign Wars, as perhaps 90% of the USA's potential Military manpower might well refuse to Volunteer to "defend" Kosovo Albanian Islamofascists. By contrast, Defensive Domestic Wars would likely enjoy a 90% Volunteer ratio -- 9 out of 10 Citizens might not volunteer to defend Albania, but only perhaps 1 out of 10 Citizens would not volunteer to defend against a direct assault on their own Homeland.

70 posted on 07/25/2002 3:22:10 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I read, somewhere the other day, an early American discussing a standing army. His objection, besides the abuse we suffered under the British troops, was that it was insulting to Americans, being supposed cowardly enough not to come to their own defense.
71 posted on 07/25/2002 3:35:24 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"...contravene the Quakers' 'religious freedom' to behave like godless pacifists."

As far as I can tell, they're NOT behaving like "godless pacifists." They're behaving like God-fearing pacifists. (Some folks take "Thou shalt not kill" literally.)
72 posted on 07/25/2002 3:36:21 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist

Tell me, do you support the RLC 'position', as it is posted here by JR?
73 posted on 07/25/2002 3:44:09 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
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;

The issue for me isn't what should be. The issue for me is the above language in the constitution.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language. While I might want it there, I don't see it there. That absence of language seems to grant definitional power to the several states from whom the militias will be called out.

Here are the other appearances of "militia" in the constitution. Again, I see no language that says the militia is voluntary.

The fifth amendment says no one can be deprived arbitrarily of "liberty." All that's required to actually deprive one of liberty is "due process of law." The clause indicates it's speaking of criminal proceedings, however.

Art. 2, Sec 8 -- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

74 posted on 07/25/2002 4:30:55 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language."

How about this language?

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS.

So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?
75 posted on 07/25/2002 4:46:41 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
What's up Jim?
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.
Neutral?
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.



You posted the above this morning. - An hour later, I wrote a short retort, intending to post it on this thread. - But then had second thoughts, as it would no doubt only start a 'flame war'.

So I posted the below, to you, in 'private reply':

Re: REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
To Reagan Man | 2002-07-25 09:45:41 sent
Hoisted on your own petard as a rino, and as an irrational libertarian hater.
Thank you.


-- Now, you have seen fit to 'report' me to the mods as flaming you in private.
- How weird can you get?
76 posted on 07/25/2002 4:57:36 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner; OrthodoxPresbyterian
"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS. So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?

I think we should follow the constitution. The language you point out, as you mention, probably will be interpreted to relate to a bygone slavery/servitude economic system.

It is POSSIBLE that it could be interpreted to cover involuntary military conscription, but it hasn't been used that way up to this point, even though it could have been.

My point is that to get the language you want, you will probably have to amend the constitution regarding the selective service draft.

There is no language currently in the Constitution that MUST MEAN that a draft is inappropriate.

77 posted on 07/25/2002 4:59:39 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I think we should follow the constitution."

Well, the Constitution says "involuntary servitude" is forbidden.

"My point is that to get the language you want, you will probably have to amend the constitution regarding the selective service draft."

You mean like, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"...."this includes involuntary servitude resulting from military conscription"?

Isn't that sort of like making an amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."..."this includes laws about virtual child pornography."?
78 posted on 07/25/2002 5:16:30 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language. While I might want it there, I don't see it there. That absence of language seems to grant definitional power to the several states from whom the militias will be called out.

At best, then, it's an issue for State Law as to whether or not Militias should be Compulsory, not a Federal prerogative (in fact, it seems to me this would be closer to Original Intent by far). The Federals can call out the "Militia", but the definition thereof is left to the States.

79 posted on 07/25/2002 6:28:01 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
As far as I can tell, they're NOT behaving like "godless pacifists." They're behaving like God-fearing pacifists. (Some folks take "Thou shalt not kill" literally.)

The Commandment is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Bad Translations do not Good Theology make.

Defense of Family is not Murder, it is Duty.

80 posted on 07/25/2002 6:29:55 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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