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.
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.
"I, _____, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____ and to the American people, that as their elected representative I will work to: Restore liberty, not restrict it; shrink government, not expand it; reduce taxes, not raise them; abolish programs, not create them; promote the freedom and independence of citizens, not the interference of government in their lives; and observe the limited, enumerated powers of our Constitution, not ignore them."
So far only only 5 congressmen have signed it since March.
Rep. Todd Akin of (R-Missouri)
Rep. Bob Barr of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Jack Kingston of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Pat Toomey of (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee)
Thank you very much for providing this forum.
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.