Introduction: Why I'm Running.

Tessa has encouraged me to write a statement outlining what I stand for and why I am running. I plan on making several posts on specific topics, but here is an introduction to some of my thoughts on politics and my candidacy.

I think that both major parties engage in “soft” corruption by passing legislation that benefits their supporters more than the American people in general. This is called “special” welfare to contrast it with “general” welfare which is what is explicitly allowed under the constitution. US Constitution Article I Section 8. 

The best way to eliminate this kind of soft corruption is, in my opinion, to take a strict and narrow view of the constitution.

Some may wonder why we need to follow the constitution so closely. After all, it's such an old set of laws. But I think that if we, as a society, begin to go soft on how we follow the law, then we risk becoming a lawless society.

This does not mean that I disagree with Thoreau who taught that at times it is our duty to disobey a bad law. But I'm not talking about resisting slavery or unjust wars like he was. I'm talking about the practice of bending the rules to bestow a benefit on a political ally. I'm sure Thoreau would agree with me that that is not a good instance to employ “civil disobedience.”

There is also some virtue in putting up with an inconvenient law or even a bad law while working to change it or to find a better solution. The Declaration of Independence wisely states, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”


Also, Theodore Roosevelt, when acting as police commissioner of New York City, chose to enforce the unpopular "no alcohol on Sunday" law even though he disagreed with it because he understood the value of doing things the right way. He understood that enforcement was the police's job, while legislating was the legislature's job. Similarly, it is the job of the American people to amend the constitution, not the judiciary's.

The founders knew that they could give the federal government more power than they did. But they knew that the power to do great good, was also the power to do great evil, and it is unwise to trust mere humans with too much of that power no matter how good their professed motives. Thus, the power was divided into three branches and among the states and the people.

A candidate from the Constitution party would not be immune to the soft corruption, but it would be harder to get away with because everyone would know that a Constitution party member has promised not support any “special” welfare projects at all. Any budget she or he votes for would be something that benefits the American people in a broad way. Examples of this are interstate highway systems, bankruptcy courts, military (so long as it is not favoring certain defense contractors...), the postal service, science and education. 

Another way that the Constitution party would fight soft corruption is to prohibit congress people from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office. This would cut down on the dealing with special interest groups.






This concludes my general statement, but I want to say two more things. First I want to explain some things about the party that I may disagree with or may be wrongly reported in public sources (like Wikipedia). Then I want to quickly list some ways the Constitution Party differs from the Republican Party and even agrees somewhat with the Democratic party.

1. Wikipedia calls the Constitution Party a “theocratic” party. I don't think that is correct. Even if it were, it would not mean that I am a theocrat because although the Constitution Party is explicitly Christian, that is not why I joined it. Indeed, some members of the party probably view me with skepticism because I'm Mormon. I joined the party for its emphasis on the Constitution. As a Mormon I believe in allowing all people the right to worship how they want or to not worship at all. I would never attempt to pass a law establishing an official religion or criminalizing atheism. I would never force religion down anyone's throats. I would allow a religious person to make religious statements in her capacity as a college professor, but I would allow the atheist professor the same right, which she already enjoys, apparently, to express her beliefs.

2. The Constitution Party could be seen as nativist because it calls for a pause in immigration. I would take a more moderate approach than the party but I do note that most people believe that our immigration system should be overhauled in many ways. If anyone believes that either the party or myself are racist against Mexicans or any other immigrant, let me say unequivocally that I believe all men and women are created equal and that as a congress person I would support legislation combating racism and prejudice. I have even toyed with the idea of supporting a constitutional amendment to enshrine the civil rights act (with some modifications) in the constitution.

Here are some ways that the party agrees with democrats.

1. The party believes in reigning in the military. Neither the democrats nor the constitutionalists want to completely wipe out the military's effectiveness, but the defense department seems to be more like the war department, which is not its proper role. There is now a department of Homeland Security, to do, apparently, what the defense department isn't doing.
2. Many democrats were critical of the Patriot Act, and the accumulation of power in the executive. So is the Constitution party.
3. The Democratic National Committee agrees that we must secure our borders and that immigrants must learn English.

Agreement with libertarians.

1. While libertarians and constitutionalists disagree on what constitutes marriage, we both agree that it is not the job of the government to define what marriage is. I was surprised when many libertarians applauded the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. I can see why they liked the outcome, but they were rejoicing in an act that cemented the Supreme Court's power in deciding what marriage is. Let's allow communities, individuals, families, churches and other groups decide for themselves what marriage is and let the state follow, not lead.
2. Both parties believe in a limited government and low taxes.
3. Both parties would decrease the level of foreign involvement in wars.

I'm on the ballot.

My name is in the news. Now I just have to beat the 7 other candidates.


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29151266&nid=148&title=dozens-file-for-attorney-general-congressional-district-elections&s_cid=queue-2

What the Word "State" Means.

We live in a country called the United States of America. Every school child knows how our country came about; there were these 13 colonies that were being mistreated by the British government. So they banded together, made a knew government and rebelled against the British. These 13 colonies called themselves "free and independent states." So what did they mean when they changed from "colonies" to "states?"

One view of it is that the states are administrative divisions of the nation. In France, for example, there are administrative divisions that help the government govern. Is this what is meant by "state?"

It doesn't appear so. When we look at other uses of the word "state" it takes on a very different meaning than "administrative division."

For example, our national government has a "State Department" that is led by the Secretary of State. Does the State Department deal with the individual states? Does he, for example, visit Alabama or Hawaii or Texas to work out deals with the national government? No. In fact, the Secretary of State represents the national government in dealing with foreign governments. So why is he called the Secretary of State?

It is because the "state" he represents is the United States of America. In other words, the state of the United States of America.

Here is another example: the official name for Israel is "The State of Israel."  Why is that? Is Israel an administrative division of another country? No.

It is because of this startling fact: the word "state" means "nation." 

That's right: a state is merely a nation.

So what does it mean that we are the United States of America? That there are 50 separate nations? No, there are 50 united nations who have entered into a contract where they agree to have an overarching government that unifies all 50 nations into one. 

This, by the way, is what is meant by the "federal" government. A federal government exists where  the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments. 

In our modern republic, this concept has sadly been mostly lost. Alexander Hamilton stated that "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either [the state government or the national government], they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." But since we have come to believe that states are mere administrative divisions of the national government, states have lost the ability to provide a check on the growth of national power. Unfortunately, we now live in a republic that appears to be run more by corporations, banks, labor unions and special interest groups than by the people. This is due, in part, in my opinion, on the fact that states can no longer serve as "free and independent" nations to balance out the power of the government in Washington DC.